|
Post by cordless2016 on Jan 12, 2014 12:22:54 GMT -5
Was hhh ever the man? No, but he is in that second tier right below the faces of the company. I put him in the same tier as guys like hbk, savage, angle, taker, etcetera... Guys like Jericho and edge would be below them IMO.
The very top tier guys are few and far between. To me the faces of the company were sammartino, backlund, hogan, Bret, Austin, and rock. Cena may not draw like these men but he has to be considered in their tier as well given he has been the face of the company since 2005.
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 14:09:26 GMT -5
Was hhh ever the man? No, but he is in that second tier right below the faces of the company. I put him in the same tier as guys like hbk, savage, angle, taker, etcetera... Guys like Jericho and edge would be below them IMO. The very top tier guys are few and far between. To me the faces of the company were sammartino, backlund, hogan, Bret, Austin, and rock. Cena may not draw like these men but he has to be considered in their tier as well given he has been the face of the company since 2005. Are your serious man "second tier like HBK Savage and Taker". Regardless of How anyone feels about HHH. Savage was a two time champion one of those reigns was a year long. HBK was the face of the WWE through 1996 and 1997, Undertaker is a multiple champion, icon and staple of WWE since 1990 . Even when he is a once a year attraction. So IMO you need to possibly reevaluate your tiers man
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 14:19:39 GMT -5
How do you figure He won his first belt in 1999 before the angle with Steph Started. Remember before the Curtain Call He was supposed to be pushed in 1996 and win that years KOTR. Even when he first started the angle with Stpeh he was boning Chyna that alone should give you some sort of title LOL. Him and steph weren't an Item till right before he blew his quad in 2001 and by then he had multiple runs. Im not a fan either but facts are facts. He was a solid main evener before he dipped the pin in company ink. I understand where you are coming from but when your competition is Austin, Rock, Foley, Undertaker, etc. what does Triple H bring to the table that those guys don't? I guess my question is this... What is ONE thing Triple H does better than anybody else? Is there anything? Are his promos better than any of the guys listed above? Is his ring work better? What does he really do that is special, unique or innovative? What 1 thing does HHH do better than anyone? You could ask that about Ric Flair too. Yea Flair was great on the MIC Dusty was better. Flair was great at selling Arn and Tully Blanchard were better. Flair could Mat Wrestle well Steamboat was better. HHH and Flair were both solid all around workers and Champions. IM NOT TRYING TO COMPARE THEM AS WRESTLERS THATS JUST AN EXAMPLE. The one thing they have in common as something they were good at is an intangible to being a great wrestler . They both were the best in their time at making people either love or hate them. You either paid to see them win or paid to see them get their skull kicked in either way you paid to see them in their era. Am I an HHH fan no I am not but I will tell you that is what they were both good at. You can argue how he got to where he was till your blue in the face I have weighed in with my opinion. But the fact of the matter is . When HHH was on top he was the best at just that he made you pay to see him lose or pay to see him victorious. Just my two cents
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 14:20:33 GMT -5
I must ask this though Are all these people who are overly critical of HHH life long Brett Hart Fans who hold the Montreal BS against him?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:29:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 15:07:16 GMT -5
I must ask this though Are all these people who are overly critical of HHH life long Brett Hart Fans who hold the Montreal BS against him? No.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:29:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 15:31:10 GMT -5
I must ask this though Are all these people who are overly critical of HHH life long Brett Hart Fans who hold the Montreal BS against him? One t
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 15:40:07 GMT -5
I must ask this though Are all these people who are overly critical of HHH life long Brett Hart Fans who hold the Montreal BS against him? One t
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jan 12, 2014 15:42:13 GMT -5
Was hhh ever the man? No, but he is in that second tier right below the faces of the company. I put him in the same tier as guys like hbk, savage, angle, taker, etcetera... Guys like Jericho and edge would be below them IMO. The very top tier guys are few and far between. To me the faces of the company were sammartino, backlund, hogan, Bret, Austin, and rock. Cena may not draw like these men but he has to be considered in their tier as well given he has been the face of the company since 2005. Are your serious man "second tier like HBK Savage and Taker". Regardless of How anyone feels about HHH. Savage was a two time champion one of those reigns was a year long. HBK was the face of the WWE through 1996 and 1997, Undertaker is a multiple champion, icon and staple of WWE since 1990 . Even when he is a once a year attraction. So IMO you need to possibly reevaluate your tiers man 1) You gotta calm down. Its an opinion with reasons behind it. Make some more solid posts before you go claiming that your opinion is right. 2) Lets go over some of your points... - Savage was a place holder for Hogan. He simply held the title for a yeah to build towards Hogan knocking him off his thrown at WM. Savage's momentum was also dead in the water when he turned face. Sure it was a great moment when he won the title at WM4, but the moment Hogan stepped into the ring it was clear that Savage was second to Hogan. After dropping that title Savage became the #3 guy behind Warrior who was Vince's new favorite pet. Savage was simply never pushed as the face of the company. - HBK failed as champ. If anything Bret proved he was still the face of the company when he drew the highest rated months that year in January and February when he was champ. He also headlined the highest rated Raw that year when he made his return in the Fall. And while Bret was gone it was Taker and Mankind who drew the most interest for the WWF. Their feud basically carried the company through the year while Shawn was throwing temper tantrums every week. If you want more proof here are the buyrates for the major PPVs while Bret, Diesel, and HBK were champs... Bret's run SS 92-1.4 RR 93-1.25 WM IX-2.0 RR 94-0.9 WM X-1.68 KOTR94-0.85 Summerslam 94-1.3 SS94-0.9 Diesel's run RR 95-1.0 WM XI-1.3 KOTR 95-0.65 Summerslam 95- 0.9 SS.95-0.57 Shawns run WM XII-1.2 KOTR 96-0.6 Summerslam 96-0.58 SS 96- 0.58 And the nWo wasn't the only reason HBK failed. The guy was like Cena in that he didn't click with a large majority of the fan base unless he was heel. Bret, Taker, Austin, and Mankind appealed to a larger part of the audience than Shawn. Not taking away from Shawn because I'm a big fan but the guy, especially during the 90s. But he never succeeded as the face of the company when given the ball. - Taker has been with the WWE for well over 25 years but he was never pushed as the face of the company. He was a top guy but never the main draw like Hogan, Austin, Bret, and Rock were. Again nothing against Taker because I'm a huge fan but he was never the face of the company. So once more this is all opinion based but there is a big difference from being "The Man" and a main eventer. The face of the company over the years have been Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan, Bret, Austin, Rock, and Cena. Second tier doesn't make the men I listed any worse. Its just their place in the history of everything. Guys like HHH, HBK, Angle, Taker, Savage, Morales, etc... were never pushed to the forefront as "The Man." Takes nothing away from them.
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 15:46:13 GMT -5
Are your serious man "second tier like HBK Savage and Taker". Regardless of How anyone feels about HHH. Savage was a two time champion one of those reigns was a year long. HBK was the face of the WWE through 1996 and 1997, Undertaker is a multiple champion, icon and staple of WWE since 1990 . Even when he is a once a year attraction. So IMO you need to possibly reevaluate your tiers man 1) You gotta calm down. Its an opinion with reasons behind it. Make some more solid posts before you go claiming that your opinion is right. 2) Lets go over some of your points... - Savage was a place holder for Hogan. He simply held the title for a yeah to build towards Hogan knocking him off his thrown at WM. Savage's momentum was also dead in the water when he turned face. Sure it was a great moment when he won the title at WM4, but the moment Hogan stepped into the ring it was clear that Savage was second to Hogan. After dropping that title Savage became the #3 guy behind Warrior who was Vince's new favorite pet. Savage was simply never pushed as the face of the company. - HBK failed as champ. If anything Bret proved he was still the face of the company when he drew the highest rated months that year in January and February when he was champ. He also headlined the highest rated Raw that year when he made his return in the Fall. And while Bret was gone it was Taker and Mankind who drew the most interest for the WWF. Their feud basically carried the company through the year while Shawn was throwing temper tantrums every week. If you want more proof here are the buyrates for the major PPVs while Bret, Diesel, and HBK were champs... Bret's run SS 92-1.4 RR 93-1.25 WM IX-2.0 RR 94-0.9 WM X-1.68 KOTR94-0.85 Summerslam 94-1.3 SS94-0.9 Diesel's run RR 95-1.0 WM XI-1.3 KOTR 95-0.65 Summerslam 95- 0.9 SS.95-0.57 Shawns run WM XII-1.2 KOTR 96-0.6 Summerslam 96-0.58 SS 96- 0.58 And the nWo wasn't the only reason HBK failed. The guy was like Cena in that he didn't click with a large majority of the fan base unless he was heel. Bret, Taker, Austin, and Mankind appealed to a larger part of the audience than Shawn. Not taking away from Shawn because I'm a big fan but the guy, especially during the 90s. But he never succeeded as the face of the company when given the ball. - Taker has been with the WWE for well over 25 years but he was never pushed as the face of the company. He was a top guy but never the main draw like Hogan, Austin, Bret, and Rock were. Again nothing against Taker because I'm a huge fan but he was never the face of the company. So once more this is all opinion based but there is a big difference from being "The Man" and a main eventer. The face of the company over the years have been Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan, Bret, Austin, Rock, and Cena. Second tier doesn't make the men I listed any worse. Its just their place in the history of everything. Guys like HHH, HBK, Angle, Taker, Savage, Morales, etc... were never pushed to the forefront as "The Man." Takes nothing away from them. I am calm I just don't agree with that statement. As for quality posts I don't feel as if your the judge of my posts. I just strongly disagree with that statement not the the triple HHH part but the tier where you put savage and taker as second tier superstars. I feel that is a ridiculous statement especially placing taker in that tier. So because I felt that statement was ridiculous I asked about it. Nothing personal I just strongly disagree.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jan 12, 2014 15:52:53 GMT -5
1) You gotta calm down. Its an opinion with reasons behind it. Make some more solid posts before you go claiming that your opinion is right. 2) Lets go over some of your points... - Savage was a place holder for Hogan. He simply held the title for a yeah to build towards Hogan knocking him off his thrown at WM. Savage's momentum was also dead in the water when he turned face. Sure it was a great moment when he won the title at WM4, but the moment Hogan stepped into the ring it was clear that Savage was second to Hogan. After dropping that title Savage became the #3 guy behind Warrior who was Vince's new favorite pet. Savage was simply never pushed as the face of the company. - HBK failed as champ. If anything Bret proved he was still the face of the company when he drew the highest rated months that year in January and February when he was champ. He also headlined the highest rated Raw that year when he made his return in the Fall. And while Bret was gone it was Taker and Mankind who drew the most interest for the WWF. Their feud basically carried the company through the year while Shawn was throwing temper tantrums every week. If you want more proof here are the buyrates for the major PPVs while Bret, Diesel, and HBK were champs... Bret's run SS 92-1.4 RR 93-1.25 WM IX-2.0 RR 94-0.9 WM X-1.68 KOTR94-0.85 Summerslam 94-1.3 SS94-0.9 Diesel's run RR 95-1.0 WM XI-1.3 KOTR 95-0.65 Summerslam 95- 0.9 SS.95-0.57 Shawns run WM XII-1.2 KOTR 96-0.6 Summerslam 96-0.58 SS 96- 0.58 And the nWo wasn't the only reason HBK failed. The guy was like Cena in that he didn't click with a large majority of the fan base unless he was heel. Bret, Taker, Austin, and Mankind appealed to a larger part of the audience than Shawn. Not taking away from Shawn because I'm a big fan but the guy, especially during the 90s. But he never succeeded as the face of the company when given the ball. - Taker has been with the WWE for well over 25 years but he was never pushed as the face of the company. He was a top guy but never the main draw like Hogan, Austin, Bret, and Rock were. Again nothing against Taker because I'm a huge fan but he was never the face of the company. So once more this is all opinion based but there is a big difference from being "The Man" and a main eventer. The face of the company over the years have been Sammartino, Backlund, Hogan, Bret, Austin, Rock, and Cena. Second tier doesn't make the men I listed any worse. Its just their place in the history of everything. Guys like HHH, HBK, Angle, Taker, Savage, Morales, etc... were never pushed to the forefront as "The Man." Takes nothing away from them. I am calm I just don't agree with that statement. As for quality posts I don't feel as if your the judge of my posts. I just strongly disagree with that statement not the the triple HHH part but the tier where you put savage and taker as second tier superstars. I feel that is a ridiculous statement especially placing taker in that tier. So because I felt that statement was ridiculous I asked about it. Nothing personal I just strongly disagree. "So IMO you need to possibly reevaluate your tiers man" Sounds more like your getting upset over my opinion... Either way I backed my statement up and if you read my post you'd see that I explained the big difference between being a main eventer and "The Man." HBK and Taker were main eventers. They were never "The Man," or pushed as the face of the company. Doesn't hurt them in the slightest or the fact that both were great performers.
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 15:59:25 GMT -5
I am calm I just don't agree with that statement. As for quality posts I don't feel as if your the judge of my posts. I just strongly disagree with that statement not the the triple HHH part but the tier where you put savage and taker as second tier superstars. I feel that is a ridiculous statement especially placing taker in that tier. So because I felt that statement was ridiculous I asked about it. Nothing personal I just strongly disagree. "So IMO you need to possibly reevaluate your tiers man" Sounds more like your getting upset over my opinion... Either way I backed my statement up and if you read my post you'd see that I explained the big difference between being a main eventer and "The Man." HBK and Taker were main eventers. They were never "The Man," or pushed as the face of the company. Doesn't hurt them in the slightest or the fact that both were great performers. No just giving my opinion on what you said. It can't be based solely on ratings or buy-rates because the whole card determines buy rates. not just one match. Also to say Shawn Michaels was never the man is ludicrous. Vince force-fed him to us in 1996 and 1997 whether you like him or not he was the man every major angle had him some way inserted into it. Case and point When Brett was Champ in late 1997 Shawn was the main event at Badd Blood vs the Undertaker. Your not getting that if your not the man.
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Jan 12, 2014 16:04:15 GMT -5
"So IMO you need to possibly reevaluate your tiers man" Sounds more like your getting upset over my opinion... Either way I backed my statement up and if you read my post you'd see that I explained the big difference between being a main eventer and "The Man." HBK and Taker were main eventers. They were never "The Man," or pushed as the face of the company. Doesn't hurt them in the slightest or the fact that both were great performers. No just giving my opinion on what you said. It can't be based solely on ratings or buy-rates because the whole card determines buy rates. not just one match. Also to say Shawn Michaels was never the man is ludicrous. Vince force-fed him to us in 1996 and 1997 whether you like him or not he was the man every major angle had him some way inserted into it. Case and point When Brett was Champ in late 1997 Shawn was the main event at Badd Blood vs the Undertaker. Your not getting that if your not the man. Vince force-fed us Shawn but he didn't get over as the man. Bret drew the highest ratings that year and the Taker/Mankind feud was what kept fans interested in the WWF that year. Not Shawn burying Vader or going over Bulldog for the hundredth time. In '97 Bret was the dominant heel until DX showed up and Austin was the hottest thing in the WWF by far by mid year. As for the Bad Blood main event, yes Taker/HBK deserved to main event considering Bret was stuck in a pointless feud with The Patriot.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:29:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 16:07:44 GMT -5
Yeah you really can't put Savage, Undertaker, Warrior, Shawn, Diesel or Foley in the same crowd as Hogan, Bret, Austin, Cena etc.
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 16:09:50 GMT -5
Yeah you really can't put Savage, Undertaker, Warrior, Shawn, Diesel or Foley in the same crowd as Hogan, Bret, Austin, Cena etc. Well were going to have to agree to disagree on savage,taker and Shawn
|
|
|
Post by Brunt's Left Foot on Jan 12, 2014 16:11:01 GMT -5
I don't think you can put Bret in the same category as Austin or Hogan....
|
|
HalfBlackRazorback
Superstar
Im calling it tonight Bray Wyatt beats Bryan and the IWC explodes
Joined on: Dec 28, 2013 8:43:18 GMT -5
Posts: 710
|
Post by HalfBlackRazorback on Jan 12, 2014 16:11:51 GMT -5
just one question. If Taker never was the man then why did Brett say in his book that he had agreed with Vince that "only person that could make more than him was the Undertaker"
|
|
|
Post by ~ Cymru ~ on Jan 12, 2014 16:30:20 GMT -5
I'm not saying in ring wise because I'm a big fan of Trips, and I agree with what you both said. But I mean how would the company fare with Steph and Shane in the spot that Triple H is in now. I think if he wasn't connected to the family he'd be retired now or just working the WM season yeah I see what you mean......what would the rest of his career post injury have been like etc etc. good point. I do think his marrying into the family helped him secure and keep a top spot, obviously they knew he was gonna be the company owner in years to come so they had to protect him keep him above everyone else, so that when he took over he wouldn't look like a weak boss in the spot that Vince had. I'm not saying he married for power, but it certainly had its perks career wise. But I do think he kept personal and career lives seperate. Yeah he held the title a lot, but he dropped it to guys who needed it go go over, He's influenced so many peoples career, made so many people, and changed the direction of many too. Batista, would he have reached main event status Randy Orton, same a MAJOR player in WWE at the moment, where would he be. Evolution, the rise of Baista and Orton, if there was no evolution would we have seen Flair return? Would HBK have come back? Shawn said he only wanted to return to face Trips, think of the matches we wouldn't have had if it wasn't for Hunter being there Sheamus, where would he be? a year before winning the WWE title he won an indy title in my city. Foley, their feuds we awesome snm.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:29:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 16:38:07 GMT -5
I don't think you can put Bret in the same category as Austin or Hogan.... Bret may not have achieved the level of fame that Hogan and Austin did, but he's on the list of wrestlers who carried the company and was seen as the face of the company by fans. He's also one of very few wrestlers who have ever transcended the business and became a household name (clearly supported by the fact he is still to this day the ONLY wrestler to ever do voicework on the Simpsons, and during the height of its popularity). just one question. If Taker never was the man then why did Brett say in his book that he had agreed with Vince that "only person that could make more than him was the Undertaker" I don't recall him saying that. But even if he did, that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Undertaker has never been pushed as the face of the company, nor has he ever been seen as such by fans.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 27, 2024 8:29:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2014 16:44:02 GMT -5
yeah I see what you mean......what would the rest of his career post injury have been like etc etc. good point. I do think his marrying into the family helped him secure and keep a top spot, obviously they knew he was gonna be the company owner in years to come so they had to protect him keep him above everyone else, so that when he took over he wouldn't look like a weak boss in the spot that Vince had. I'm not saying he married for power, but it certainly had its perks career wise. But I do think he kept personal and career lives seperate. Yeah he held the title a lot, but he dropped it to guys who needed it go go over, He's influenced so many peoples career, made so many people, and changed the direction of many too. Batista, would he have reached main event status Randy Orton, same a MAJOR player in WWE at the moment, where would he be. Evolution, the rise of Baista and Orton, if there was no evolution would we have seen Flair return? Would HBK have come back? Shawn said he only wanted to return to face Trips, think of the matches we wouldn't have had if it wasn't for Hunter being there Sheamus, where would he be? a year before winning the WWE title he won an indy title in my city. Foley, their feuds we awesome snm. Foley helped Trips not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Brunt's Left Foot on Jan 12, 2014 16:49:39 GMT -5
I don't think you can put Bret in the same category as Austin or Hogan.... Bret may not have achieved the level of fame that Hogan and Austin did, but he's on the list of wrestlers who carried the company and was seen as the face of the company by fans. He's also one of very few wrestlers who have ever transcended the business and became a household name (clearly supported by the fact he is still to this day the ONLY wrestler to ever do voicework on the Simpsons, and during the height of its popularity). All that is very arguable. Some would say a guy who held the companies' main title for a year, main evented all the PPVs and headlined a lot of the house shows was "carrying the company". Guys like Diesel and Shawn Michaels. And I definitely wouldn't say Bret was a household name outside of wrestling. At most you'd probably get this reaction to someone mentioning his name "Bret Hart? Isn't he a wrestler?". Everyone knows who Stone Cold and Hulk Hogan are. I wouldn't even say Bret is on Cena's level in that respect.
|
|